Alfred Austin's poetics

[George J. Dance]

Today I added this section to the Penny's Poetry Pages article on Alfred Austin. It covers the basics, and is therefore much better than nothing. Depending on the discussion, I may add to it in future.

Austin's poetics are more interesting than his poetry.<ref>c.f. Alfred Austin, "The Essentials of Great Poetry" in ''The Bridling of Pegasus: Prose papers on poetry'' (Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1967). [Austin (1967)]. Project Gutenberg, Web, Nov. 2, 2023.</ref>

Austin believed that melodiousness (musicality) and lucidity (clearness of expression) were essential to poetry.

:There must perforce be certain qualities common to all poetry, whether the greatest, the less great, or the[Pg 3] comparatively inferior, and whether descriptive, lyrical, idyllic, reflective, epic, or dramatic; and, so long as there existed any authority or body of generally accepted opinion on the subject, these were at least two such qualities, viz. melodiousness, whether sweet or sonorous, and lucidity or clearness of expression, to be apprehended, without laborious investigation, by highly cultured and simple readers alike.<ref>Austin (1967), 2-3.</ref>

:The most generous critic, if he is to be discriminating and just, cannot, let me say again, allow that any verse which is profoundly obscure or utterly unmusical, no matter how intellectual in substance, deserves the appellation of poetry.<ref>Austin (1967), 7.</ref>

He believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. On his theory, as I understand it, poetry was about the mind's engagement with the world. According to him, there are four distinct ways in which a mind engages with the world: (1) perception, (2) emotion, (3) thought, and (4) action. Each stage of engagement is a higher form, in that it emerges from and incorporates those below it. The four classed of poetry, corresponding to the different stages of engagement, are (1) purely descriptive poetry (such as [[imagism]]), (2) lyric poetry, (3) reflective or philosophical poetry, and finally (4) narrative (epic or dramatic) poetry.

:Never forgetting the essential qualities of melody and lucidity, do we not find that mere descriptive verse, which depends on perception or observation, is the humblest and most elementary form of poetry; that descriptive verse, when suffused with sentiment,[Pg 10] gains in value and charm; that if, to the foregoing, thought or reflection be superadded, there is a conspicuous rise in dignity, majesty, and relative excellence; and finally, that the employment of these in narrative action, whether epic or dramatic, carries us on to a stage of supreme excellence which can rarely be predicated of any poetry in which action is absent? If this be so, we have to the successive development of observation, feeling, thought, and action, an exact analogy or counterpart in (1) Descriptive Poetry; (2) Lyrical Poetry; (3) Reflective Poetry; (4) Epic or Dramatic Poetry; in each of which, melody and lucidity being always present, there is an advance in poetic value over the preceding stage, without the preceding one being eliminated from its progress.<ref>Austin (1967), 9-10.</ref>

[Will Dockery]

Alfred Austin is an interesting poet, new to me.

Thanks for posting, George.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 10:03:59 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:

> Today I added this section to the Penny's Poetry Pages article on Alfred Austin. It covers the basics, and is therefore much better than nothing. Depending on the discussion, I may add to it in future.
>
> Austin's poetics are more interesting than his poetry.<ref>c.f. Alfred Austin, "The Essentials of Great Poetry" in ''The Bridling of Pegasus: Prose papers on poetry'' (Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1967). [Austin (1967)]. Project Gutenberg, Web, Nov. 2, 2023.</ref>
>
> Austin believed that melodiousness (musicality) and lucidity (clearness of expression) were essential to poetry.
>
> :There must perforce be certain qualities common to all poetry, whether the greatest, the less great, or the[Pg 3] comparatively inferior, and whether descriptive, lyrical, idyllic, reflective, epic, or dramatic; and, so long as there existed any authority or body of generally accepted opinion on the subject, these were at least two such qualities, viz. melodiousness, whether sweet or sonorous, and lucidity or clearness of expression, to be apprehended, without laborious investigation, by highly cultured and simple readers alike.<ref>Austin (1967), 2-3.</ref>
>

I wholeheartedly concur with Mr. Austin, and have expressed both of these thoughts on numerous occasions in the past.

Indeed, I have often described my own poetry as being akin to a musical composition wherein the tone of each word is used to contribute to the spoken music of the piece (hard sounds, soft sounds, stressed/unstressed syllables, various vowels, consonants and combinations thereof correspond to forms of musical notation, etc.). I'd attempted to explain this to PJR, but was unable to express it to his satisfaction.

I have also repeatedly stated my belief that a poem should readily lend itself to being read without one's having to consult a dictionary or encyclopedia. Again, my rule of thumb is that if I have to consult a dictionary more than three times when reading a poem, I will most likely abandon it in favor of one that is more accessible. This is not done out of intellectual laziness on my part, but in accordance with my belief that a poem is effectively a spell. In order for the spell to work, the poem should be brief enough for the reader to complete it in a single sitting, and should not be interrupted by one's having recourse to a dictionary. A poem should rarely exceed 100 lines, and each word, each syllable, each meaning and connotation, should contribute to creating the overall effect (or effects) in regard to mood, tone, emotion, musicality, and meaning.

Not only should it be readily understandable, but it should be clearly expressed -- in terms of grammatically correct sentences. I have often raised this point regarding the Fragmentist poetry of the Donkey and his Stink. Poetry, indeed language, is first and foremost a form of communication. If a poet is unable to clearly express his thoughts to his readers, his readers will soon abandon his work out of frustration (over its impenetrability) or out of a repulsion to its grammatical incompetence.

> :The most generous critic, if he is to be discriminating and just, cannot, let me say again, allow that any verse which is profoundly obscure or utterly unmusical, no matter how intellectual in substance, deserves the appellation of poetry.<ref>Austin (1967), 7.</ref>
>

Exactly! This is the basis of my aversion to Modern Verse. The lack of both rhyme and meter make it impossible for the poem to contain musical qualities. It can be *poetic*; but it cannot be *poetry.* Similarly, the academic obscurity of T.S. Eliot, and the conceptual obscurity of PJR, renders their works unintelligible. A poem cannot create a spell over the reader if the latter is forced to guess at its possible meaning.

> He believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. On his theory, as I understand it, poetry was about the mind's engagement with the world. According to him, there are four distinct ways in which a mind engages with the world: (1) perception, (2) emotion, (3) thought, and (4) action. Each stage of engagement is a higher form, in that it emerges from and incorporates those below it. The four classed of poetry, corresponding to the different stages of engagement, are (1) purely descriptive poetry (such as [[imagism]]), (2) lyric poetry, (3) reflective or philosophical poetry, and finally (4) narrative (epic or dramatic) poetry.
>

Funny how you claimed (in two other threads today) that you were unaware of Mr. Austin's ever having used the term "dramatic verse." Do you feel there is a significant difference between the meanings of "verse" and "poetry"; or were you just trolling on the basis of his not having used those exact words?

That said, I disagree with his assessment. I believe that there are forms of poetry: 1) one-dimensional, and 2) multi-layered. The former categorization includes perception/imagist, emotion/lyric and action\narrative-epic-dramatic. The latter, to thought/reflective-philosophical.

A multi-layered poem is one which can be interpreted on two or more levels; the first level being the one-dimensional (apparent) level exemplified by Austin's categorizations of perception, emotion, and action, the second (third, fourth, fifth, etc.) being on a more abstract or symbolic level. As an example of the latter, I refer you to the recent discussion regarding my poem, "The Blue Rose." Ostensibly, it can be read as a broken-hearted love poem; however, it can also be read as referring to the Jain concept of the same name. Ideally, both levels interact with one another so that the poem becomes both a love poem and an exploration of Jainism at the same time -- the each interpretation lending meaning to the other.

> :Never forgetting the essential qualities of melody and lucidity, do we not find that mere descriptive verse, which depends on perception or observation, is the humblest and most elementary form of poetry; that descriptive verse, when suffused with sentiment,[Pg 10] gains in value and charm; that if, to the foregoing, thought or reflection be superadded, there is a conspicuous rise in dignity, majesty, and relative excellence; and finally, that the employment of these in narrative action, whether epic or dramatic, carries us on to a stage of supreme excellence which can rarely be predicated of any poetry in which action is absent? If this be so, we have to the successive development of observation, feeling, thought, and action, an exact analogy or counterpart in (1) Descriptive Poetry; (2) Lyrical Poetry; (3) Reflective Poetry; (4) Epic or Dramatic Poetry; in each of which, melody and lucidity being always present, there is an advance in poetic value over the preceding stage, without the preceding one being eliminated from its progress.<ref>Austin (1967), 9-10.</ref>

See above. I agree that purely descriptive poetry is the humblest form, and that the inclusion of emotion can raise it to another level. However, "action," (i.e., narrative/dramatic) poetry is merely the description of an event or sequence of events. It is the inclusion of other (intellectual/abstract/symbolic) levels of meaning that raises a poem above the commonplace and into the sublime.



Michael Pendragon
"He's not obsessing, he's laughing.overover this typo..."
-- Will Donkey laughing overover other people's typos.

[Faraway Star]

Agreed....!

Good read...!

[George J.]

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 10:03:59 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
>> Today I added this section to the Penny's Poetry Pages article on Alfred Austin. It covers the basics, and is therefore much better than nothing. Depending on the discussion, I may add to it in future.
>>
>> Austin's poetics are more interesting than his poetry.<ref>c.f. Alfred Austin, "The Essentials of Great Poetry" in ''The Bridling of Pegasus: Prose papers on poetry'' (Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1967). [Austin (1967)]. Project Gutenberg, Web, Nov. 2, 2023.</ref>
>>
>> Austin believed that melodiousness (musicality) and lucidity (clearness of expression) were essential to poetry.
>>
>> :There must perforce be certain qualities common to all poetry, whether the greatest, the less great, or the[Pg 3] comparatively inferior, and whether descriptive, lyrical, idyllic, reflective, epic, or dramatic; and, so long as there existed any authority or body of generally accepted opinion on the subject, these were at least two such qualities, viz. melodiousness, whether sweet or sonorous, and lucidity or clearness of expression, to be apprehended, without laborious investigation, by highly cultured and simple readers alike.<ref>Austin (1967), 2-3.</ref>
>>

> I wholeheartedly concur with Mr. Austin, and have expressed both of these thoughts on numerous occasions in the past.

> Indeed, I have often described my own poetry as being akin to a musical composition wherein the tone of each word is used to contribute to the spoken music of the piece (hard sounds, soft sounds, stressed/unstressed syllables, various vowels, consonants and combinations thereof correspond to forms of musical notation, etc.). I'd attempted to explain this to PJR, but was unable to express it to his satisfaction.

> I have also repeatedly stated my belief that a poem should readily lend itself to being read without one's having to consult a dictionary or encyclopedia. Again, my rule of thumb is that if I have to consult a dictionary more than three times when reading a poem, I will most likely abandon it in favor of one that is more accessible. This is not done out of intellectual laziness on my part, but in accordance with my belief that a poem is effectively a spell. In order for the spell to work, the poem should be brief enough for the reader to complete it in a single sitting, and should not be interrupted by one's having recourse to a dictionary. A poem should rarely exceed 100 lines, and each word, each syllable, each meaning and connotation, should contribute to creating the overall effect (or effects) in regard to mood, tone, emotion, musicality, and meaning.

> Not only should it be readily understandable, but it should be clearly expressed -- in terms of grammatically correct sentences. I have often raised this point regarding the Fragmentist poetry of the Donkey and his Stink. Poetry, indeed language, is first and foremost a form of communication. If a poet is unable to clearly express his thoughts to his readers, his readers will soon abandon his work out of frustration (over its impenetrability) or out of a repulsion to its grammatical incompetence.

>> :The most generous critic, if he is to be discriminating and just, cannot, let me say again, allow that any verse which is profoundly obscure or utterly unmusical, no matter how intellectual in substance, deserves the appellation of poetry.<ref>Austin (1967), 7.</ref>
>>

> Exactly! This is the basis of my aversion to Modern Verse. The lack of both rhyme and meter make it impossible for the poem to contain musical qualities. It can be *poetic*; but it cannot be *poetry.* Similarly, the academic obscurity of T.S. Eliot, and the conceptual obscurity of PJR, renders their works unintelligible. A poem cannot create a spell over the reader if the latter is forced to guess at its possible meaning.


>> He believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. On his theory, as I understand it, poetry was about the mind's engagement with the world. According to him, there are four distinct ways in which a mind engages with the world: (1) perception, (2) emotion, (3) thought, and (4) action. Each stage of engagement is a higher form, in that it emerges from and incorporates those below it. The four classed of poetry, corresponding to the different stages of engagement, are (1) purely descriptive poetry (such as [[imagism]]), (2) lyric poetry, (3) reflective or philosophical poetry, and finally (4) narrative (epic or dramatic) poetry.
>>

> Funny how you claimed (in two other threads today) that you were unaware of Mr. Austin's ever having used the term "dramatic verse." Do you feel there is a significant difference between the meanings of "verse" and "poetry"; or were you just trolling on the basis of his not having used those exact words?

Neither. I asked you for a quote (in one thread, twice) where he used the term because I thought you were misquoting him. Now that I've tracked down what he does say about the subject, I'm convinced of it.

> That said, I disagree with his assessment. I believe that there are forms of poetry: 1) one-dimensional, and 2) multi-layered. The former categorization includes perception/imagist, emotion/lyric and actionnarrative-epic-dramatic. The latter, to thought/reflective-philosophical.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:35:17 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 10:03:59 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> >> Today I added this section to the Penny's Poetry Pages article on Alfred Austin. It covers the basics, and is therefore much better than nothing. Depending on the discussion, I may add to it in future.
> >>
> >> Austin's poetics are more interesting than his poetry.<ref>c.f. Alfred Austin, "The Essentials of Great Poetry" in ''The Bridling of Pegasus: Prose papers on poetry'' (Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1967). [Austin (1967)]. Project Gutenberg, Web, Nov. 2, 2023.</ref>
> >>
> >> Austin believed that melodiousness (musicality) and lucidity (clearness of expression) were essential to poetry.
> >>
> >> :There must perforce be certain qualities common to all poetry, whether the greatest, the less great, or the[Pg 3] comparatively inferior, and whether descriptive, lyrical, idyllic, reflective, epic, or dramatic; and, so long as there existed any authority or body of generally accepted opinion on the subject, these were at least two such qualities, viz. melodiousness, whether sweet or sonorous, and lucidity or clearness of expression, to be apprehended, without laborious investigation, by highly cultured and simple readers alike.<ref>Austin (1967), 2-3.</ref>
> >>
>
> > I wholeheartedly concur with Mr. Austin, and have expressed both of these thoughts on numerous occasions in the past.
>
> > Indeed, I have often described my own poetry as being akin to a musical composition wherein the tone of each word is used to contribute to the spoken music of the piece (hard sounds, soft sounds, stressed/unstressed syllables, various vowels, consonants and combinations thereof correspond to forms of musical notation, etc.). I'd attempted to explain this to PJR, but was unable to express it to his satisfaction.
>
> > I have also repeatedly stated my belief that a poem should readily lend itself to being read without one's having to consult a dictionary or encyclopedia. Again, my rule of thumb is that if I have to consult a dictionary more than three times when reading a poem, I will most likely abandon it in favor of one that is more accessible. This is not done out of intellectual laziness on my part, but in accordance with my belief that a poem is effectively a spell. In order for the spell to work, the poem should be brief enough for the reader to complete it in a single sitting, and should not be interrupted by one's having recourse to a dictionary. A poem should rarely exceed 100 lines, and each word, each syllable, each meaning and connotation, should contribute to creating the overall effect (or effects) in regard to mood, tone, emotion, musicality, and meaning.
>
> > Not only should it be readily understandable, but it should be clearly expressed -- in terms of grammatically correct sentences. I have often raised this point regarding the Fragmentist poetry of the Donkey and his Stink. Poetry, indeed language, is first and foremost a form of communication. If a poet is unable to clearly express his thoughts to his readers, his readers will soon abandon his work out of frustration (over its impenetrability) or out of a repulsion to its grammatical incompetence.
>
> >> :The most generous critic, if he is to be discriminating and just, cannot, let me say again, allow that any verse which is profoundly obscure or utterly unmusical, no matter how intellectual in substance, deserves the appellation of poetry.<ref>Austin (1967), 7.</ref>
> >>
>
> > Exactly! This is the basis of my aversion to Modern Verse. The lack of both rhyme and meter make it impossible for the poem to contain musical qualities. It can be *poetic*; but it cannot be *poetry.* Similarly, the academic obscurity of T.S. Eliot, and the conceptual obscurity of PJR, renders their works unintelligible. A poem cannot create a spell over the reader if the latter is forced to guess at its possible meaning.
>
>
> >> He believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. On his theory, as I understand it, poetry was about the mind's engagement with the world. According to him, there are four distinct ways in which a mind engages with the world: (1) perception, (2) emotion, (3) thought, and (4) action. Each stage of engagement is a higher form, in that it emerges from and incorporates those below it. The four classed of poetry, corresponding to the different stages of engagement, are (1) purely descriptive poetry (such as [[imagism]]), (2) lyric poetry, (3) reflective or philosophical poetry, and finally (4) narrative (epic or dramatic) poetry.
> >>
>
> > Funny how you claimed (in two other threads today) that you were unaware of Mr. Austin's ever having used the term "dramatic verse." Do you feel there is a significant difference between the meanings of "verse" and "poetry"; or were you just trolling on the basis of his not having used those exact words?
> Neither. I asked you for a quote (in one thread, twice) where he used the term because I thought you were misquoting him. Now that I've tracked down what he does say about the subject, I'm convinced of it.
>

IOW: Door Number Two: You're trolling on the basis of his not having used those exact words.

[NancyGene]

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:47:25 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:35:17 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 10:03:59 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > >> Today I added this section to the Penny's Poetry Pages article on Alfred Austin. It covers the basics, and is therefore much better than nothing. Depending on the discussion, I may add to it in future.
> > >>
> > >> Austin's poetics are more interesting than his poetry.<ref>c.f. Alfred Austin, "The Essentials of Great Poetry" in ''The Bridling of Pegasus: Prose papers on poetry'' (Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1967). [Austin (1967)]. Project Gutenberg, Web, Nov. 2, 2023.</ref>
> > >>
> > >> Austin believed that melodiousness (musicality) and lucidity (clearness of expression) were essential to poetry.
> > >>
> > >> :There must perforce be certain qualities common to all poetry, whether the greatest, the less great, or the[Pg 3] comparatively inferior, and whether descriptive, lyrical, idyllic, reflective, epic, or dramatic; and, so long as there existed any authority or body of generally accepted opinion on the subject, these were at least two such qualities, viz. melodiousness, whether sweet or sonorous, and lucidity or clearness of expression, to be apprehended, without laborious investigation, by highly cultured and simple readers alike.<ref>Austin (1967), 2-3.</ref>
> > >>
> >
> > > I wholeheartedly concur with Mr. Austin, and have expressed both of these thoughts on numerous occasions in the past.
> >
> > > Indeed, I have often described my own poetry as being akin to a musical composition wherein the tone of each word is used to contribute to the spoken music of the piece (hard sounds, soft sounds, stressed/unstressed syllables, various vowels, consonants and combinations thereof correspond to forms of musical notation, etc.). I'd attempted to explain this to PJR, but was unable to express it to his satisfaction.
> >
> > > I have also repeatedly stated my belief that a poem should readily lend itself to being read without one's having to consult a dictionary or encyclopedia. Again, my rule of thumb is that if I have to consult a dictionary more than three times when reading a poem, I will most likely abandon it in favor of one that is more accessible. This is not done out of intellectual laziness on my part, but in accordance with my belief that a poem is effectively a spell. In order for the spell to work, the poem should be brief enough for the reader to complete it in a single sitting, and should not be interrupted by one's having recourse to a dictionary. A poem should rarely exceed 100 lines, and each word, each syllable, each meaning and connotation, should contribute to creating the overall effect (or effects) in regard to mood, tone, emotion, musicality, and meaning.
> >
> > > Not only should it be readily understandable, but it should be clearly expressed -- in terms of grammatically correct sentences. I have often raised this point regarding the Fragmentist poetry of the Donkey and his Stink. Poetry, indeed language, is first and foremost a form of communication. If a poet is unable to clearly express his thoughts to his readers, his readers will soon abandon his work out of frustration (over its impenetrability) or out of a repulsion to its grammatical incompetence.
> >
> > >> :The most generous critic, if he is to be discriminating and just, cannot, let me say again, allow that any verse which is profoundly obscure or utterly unmusical, no matter how intellectual in substance, deserves the appellation of poetry.<ref>Austin (1967), 7.</ref>
> > >>
> >
> > > Exactly! This is the basis of my aversion to Modern Verse. The lack of both rhyme and meter make it impossible for the poem to contain musical qualities. It can be *poetic*; but it cannot be *poetry.* Similarly, the academic obscurity of T.S. Eliot, and the conceptual obscurity of PJR, renders their works unintelligible. A poem cannot create a spell over the reader if the latter is forced to guess at its possible meaning.
> >
> >
> > >> He believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. On his theory, as I understand it, poetry was about the mind's engagement with the world. According to him, there are four distinct ways in which a mind engages with the world: (1) perception, (2) emotion, (3) thought, and (4) action. Each stage of engagement is a higher form, in that it emerges from and incorporates those below it. The four classed of poetry, corresponding to the different stages of engagement, are (1) purely descriptive poetry (such as [[imagism]]), (2) lyric poetry, (3) reflective or philosophical poetry, and finally (4) narrative (epic or dramatic) poetry.
> > >>
> >
> > > Funny how you claimed (in two other threads today) that you were unaware of Mr. Austin's ever having used the term "dramatic verse." Do you feel there is a significant difference between the meanings of "verse" and "poetry"; or were you just trolling on the basis of his not having used those exact words?
> > Neither. I asked you for a quote (in one thread, twice) where he used the term because I thought you were misquoting him. Now that I've tracked down what he does say about the subject, I'm convinced of it.
> >
> IOW: Door Number Two: You're trolling on the basis of his not having used those exact words.

How much of our research went into George Dance's additions to his bllaaarrrggg? We know that George Dance would give us credit, because that's who George Dance is.

[George J.]

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:47:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:35:17 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:

> > Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 10:03:59 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:

snip for focus

> > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. On his theory, as I understand it, poetry was about the mind's engagement with the world. According to him, there are four distinct ways in which a mind engages with the world: (1) perception, (2) emotion, (3) thought, and (4) action. Each stage of engagement is a higher form, in that it emerges from and incorporates those below it. The four classed of poetry, corresponding to the different stages of engagement, are (1) purely descriptive poetry (such as [[imagism]]), (2) lyric poetry, (3) reflective or philosophical poetry, and finally (4) narrative (epic or dramatic) poetry.

> >
> > > Funny how you claimed (in two other threads today) that you were unaware of Mr. Austin's ever having used the term "dramatic verse." Do you feel there is a significant difference between the meanings of "verse" and "poetry"; or were you just trolling on the basis of his not having used those exact words?
> > Neither. I asked you for a quote (in one thread, twice) where he used the term because I thought you were misquoting him. Now that I've tracked down what he does say about the subject, I'm convinced of it.
> >
> IOW: Door Number Two: You're trolling on the basis of his not having used those exact words.

No, Michael; your misquote indicated that you misunderstood what you read. Which, as it turns out, you did. Austin said that "narrative poetry" (not "Dramatic Verse") was the highest poetic class. Too bad you didn't have the sense to go back and reread Austin's preface.

snip for focus

[Michael Pendragon]

No, lying Dunce, this is the passage that I both read and quoted verbatim: "He saw narrative and dramatic verse as the height of poetic expression, and believed that Shakespeare and Milton were exemplars of these styles and worthy of imitation."

As you can see, the words "dramatic verse" are included, as well as the plays of Shakespeare being cited as examples.

You can read the entire passage at All Poetry, for which I had also previously provided a link. https://allpoetry.com/Alfred-Austin


Michael Pendragon
"I'm not familiar with it. Does it relate to The Beatles?"
-- Will Dockery on the extent of his cultural knowledge
https://imgur.com/gallery/dpR2ESh
https://imgur.com/gallery/rtvGMMt

[George J.]

NancyGene wrote:

> How much of our research went into George Dance's additions to his bllaaarrrggg?

why, NG, I'll use anything of your research that I can confirm with a more reliable source; it's all there, credited to the more reliable source.

> We know that George Dance would give us credit, because that's who George Dance is.

Unfortunately, I've explained the problem there: if I use your name (even the fake one you use here), Michael Monkey can "rescind" my "permission" to use it, and use that as a pretext to yet again try to get my wiki shut down. So I'm afraid you'll have to be content with the occasional "Thank you" here.

[General-Zod]

Well put...

[George J.]

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 4:40:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:47:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:35:17 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
>> > > Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 10:03:59 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
>> snip for focus
>>
>> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. On his theory, as I understand it, poetry was about the mind's engagement with the world. According to him, there are four distinct ways in which a mind engages with the world: (1) perception, (2) emotion, (3) thought, and (4) action. Each stage of engagement is a higher form, in that it emerges from and incorporates those below it. The four classed of poetry, corresponding to the different stages of engagement, are (1) purely descriptive poetry (such as [[imagism]]), (2) lyric poetry, (3) reflective or philosophical poetry, and finally (4) narrative (epic or dramatic) poetry.
>> > >
>> > > > Funny how you claimed (in two other threads today) that you were unaware of Mr. Austin's ever having used the term "dramatic verse." Do you feel there is a significant difference between the meanings of "verse" and "poetry"; or were you just trolling on the basis of his not having used those exact words?
>> > > Neither. I asked you for a quote (in one thread, twice) where he used the term because I thought you were misquoting him. Now that I've tracked down what he does say about the subject, I'm convinced of it.
>> > >
>> > IOW: Door Number Two: You're trolling on the basis of his not having used those exact words.

>> No, Michael; your misquote indicated that you misunderstood what you read.. Which, as it turns out, you did. Austin said that "narrative poetry" (not "Dramatic Verse") was the highest poetic class. Too bad you didn't have the sense to go back and reread Austin's preface.
>>
> No, lying Dunce,

Yes, Lying Michael:
<quote> Oct 24, 2023, 10:55:02 AM:
'Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.[...]
'Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
'I have cited passages from Mr. Austin's biography (at All Poetry) and from the Preface of the 1879 and 1889 editions of his poem that support this conclusion.' [...]
'The fact that he *chose* to separate it into Acts shows that he wanted it to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse" (which is what he believed to be the highest form of poetry, and which he felt was exemplified in the plays of William Shakespeare).'
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FAv8zWFQ-lo/m/H7Fv0puqBAAJ?hl=en

> this is the passage that I both read and quoted verbatim: "He saw narrative and dramatic verse as the height of poetic expression, and believed that Shakespeare and Milton were exemplars of these styles and worthy of imitation."
> As you can see, the words "dramatic verse" are included, as well as the plays of Shakespeare being cited as examples.
> You can read the entire passage at All Poetry, for which I had also previously provided a link. https://allpoetry.com/Alfred-Austin

I didn't ask you for a quote saying that *All Poetry* (sic) had used the term "dramatic verse", Lying Michael.

[Faraway Star]

Penhead sure seems to be in a confuse tizzy this afternoon... ha ha.

[Michael Pendragon]

But *that* was the quote I had originally provided, Lying Dunce.

My statement was based (as I had taken the trouble to explain in my initial post) on the "All Poetry" bio taken in tandem with Mr. Austin's Preface.

Your supposed refutation is based on only *half* of the evidence I'd introduced. IOW: You have created another of your infamous "Strawmen" arguments. As explained, elsewhere, you constantly *restate* what your opponent says, change it just enough to render it contradictory or false, and proceed to disprove something that had never been said in the first place.

"[Austin] saw narrative and dramatic verse as the height of poetic expression, and believed that Shakespeare and Milton were exemplars of these styles and worthy of imitation."

https://allpoetry.com/Alfred-Austin

I trust All Poetry as an infinitely more reliable source than George Dunce.


Michael Pendragon
“I want to hang out with you and Barfield later in the weekend... perhaps take a gander at this bood which seems most excellent...”
George “Shitstain” Sulzbach III

https://imgur.com/gallery/bMGm5SM
https://imgur.com/a/Foxnrzx
https://imgur.com/a/7c0WITn

[Will Dockery]

Nothing new there, though, of course.

And so it goes.

[George J.]

So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?

> Your supposed refutation is based on only *half* of the evidence I'd introduced. IOW: You have created another of your infamous "Strawmen" arguments. As explained, elsewhere, you constantly *restate* what your opponent says, change it just enough to render it contradictory or false, and proceed to disprove something that had never been said in the first place.

I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)

> "[Austin] saw narrative and dramatic verse as the height of poetic expression, and believed that Shakespeare and Milton were exemplars of these styles and worthy of imitation."
> https://allpoetry.com/Alfred-Austin
>
> I trust All Poetry as an infinitely more reliable source than George Dunce.

I don't expect anyone to simply trust me, any more than they'd trust you, Michael. That's why, when I claim that Austin said something, I'm careful to quote Austin saying it. I'd suggest you try doing the same thing.

[Will Dockery]

Looks like some of the trolls wanted to bury this one.

HTH and HAND.

[George J.]

Indeed it do; considering the many troll-threads they've moved the discussion to. And if someone's trying to bury a thread, the rational response is to bump it. So here's a post [edited a bit] from one of NG's troll-threads, which adds important context to the part of the discussion we've seen here.

NancyGene wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 9:45:58 PM UTC+12, George J. wrote:
>> NancyGene wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 3:02:53 AM UTC-9, NancyGene wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 10:51:30 AM UTC-9, NancyGene wrote:
>> >> > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:23:26 PM UTC-2, ME wrote:
>> >> > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 14:09:04 UTC-5, ME wrote:
>> >> > > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 13:52:41 UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:

>> >> > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 3:05:33 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?
>> >> > > > >

>> >> > > > > AND:

>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)

>> >> > > > > __________
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > “On the Position and Prospects of Poetry”
>> >> > > > > Alfred Austin, pp. xxii and xxiii
>> >> > > > > in:
>> >> > > > > “THE HUMAN TRAGEDY
>> >> > > > > BY ALFRED AUSTIN
>> >> > > > > NEW AND REVISED EDITION
>> >> > > > > LONDON
>> >> > > > > MACMILLAN AND CO.
>> >> > > > > AND NEW YORK
>> >> > > > > 1889”
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > “[…] so is there an ascending scale of growth and dignity in Poetry, represented by Descriptive, Lyrical, Reflective, and Epic or Dramatic Poetry; the highest Poetry being epic and dramatic poetry, because, in their full development, epic and dramatic poetry include and employ all other kinds of poetry, whereas in other forms of poetry they themselves are not included. This is what Milton must have had in mind when he penned the lines in ‘Paradise Regained’—
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > ‘Aeolian charms and Dorian lyric odes,
>> >> > > > > And his who gave them birth, but higher sung,
>> >> > > > > Blind Melesigenes, then Homer called.’ “
>> >> > > > And their circle jerk goes on …….
>> >> > > As I said….,
>> >> > George Dance will state his question another way, deny that he doubted that Austin said what he said, and call us names. He will sneak our research into his bllaaarrrggg and call it his.
>> >> The proof is in the preface, George Dance.
>>
>> > George Dance stated in another thread: "Then open the book and start reading it. Reading a book or a poem -- not collecting second-hand opinions of it -- is the way to learn something about it."
>> Indeed I did, NastyGoon. We were discussing your catty dismissal of Austin as a "not a very good poet" (or however you put it), which was based entirely on second-hand opinions; but it applies to him as well, since he hasn't read any of it either.
> The opinions were from critics of the day, contemporary with Austin. Do you ignore all reviews and opinions from qualified people, in favor of just your own opinion?

Oh, no, NastyGoon, you're misunderstanding again. One should read all the reviews. However, when it comes to [believing] him. you have to use your own judgement, put them in context, and consider the sources. The "opinions ... of the day" have actually been from other poets, Austin's competitors. Poets like Browning and Blunt were not dispassionate critics: they were convinced that they were "better" poets than Austin [...] (and may have been; I'm not getting into that), so it's reasonable to think they were both jealous and butthurt when Austin became Poet Laureate, while neither of them were even considered for the job.

(I've witnessed that very thing first hand; for example, I remember how jealous and butthurt Jim Senetto became when Will Dockery got a book published by George J. Dance and he didn't. So I do know what I'm talking about.)

>> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.

>> The problem with that, NastyGoon, is that I did know "that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and and you already know that; since you've read where I've stated it:

> Then why did you say to Michael: "So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?" AND "I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)" .....if you already knew where it was?

As I've already explained, Michael was misquoting Austin, and, more importantly, was misrepresenting him. Austin said that narrative poetry (whether written in epic or dramatic style were the highest form of poetry. Michael's account made no mention of epic poetry at all -- in Michael's account "Dramatic Verse" was the highest form and dumb old epic poetry wasn't even worth a mention.

> George Dance, you are are losing focus.

No, NastyGoon. Here's where the focus is, and should stay:

Alfred Austin wrote an epic poem, /The Human Tragedy/. Perhaps because of the title, perhaps because he called his Cantos "Acts," you got the idea Austin's epic was a play -- you mistakenly called it a play, and I corrected you. Since you and your monkey don't like to be corrected, given that you want to be seen as "so much smarter," than anyone else, you've been spreading the nonsense that [Austin's] epic really was a play.

You've finally conceded that his original (1862) verse was an epic poem; your current story is that Austin turned it into a play in his 1876 revision.

>> <quote>
>> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. </q>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
>> We know you read that, since it's from the very post you copied the quotes in your OP for this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread so that you could misrepresent the discussion?

> No, it was to make sure that you saw the origin of the quote that Austin thought that dramatic verse was the highest form of poetry.

As we've seen, that quote did not say "that dramatic verse was the [highest] form of poetry". Austin thought that narrative poetry, whether written in dramatic style as a play (like Shakespeare) or in straight narrative as an epic (like Milton) was the highest form. Austin's quotes do not say that "dramatic verse" was higher or better than epic poetry, while Michael's quotes say exactly that.

> Remember that you questioned Michael as to the source? Sheesh. You seem to have both short and long-term memory loss.

As I've explained, and we all can see since you've given the source, Michael was misrepresenting his source; he was dishonestly pretending that Austin thought dramatic poetry was "higher" than epic poetry. Why? So that stupid people, who've never read the poem, would believe that was why Austin turned his epic poem into a "closet drama" (which, to repeat, never happened).

>> > We don't think that George Dance fully reads any of the poems that George Dance features on George Dance's blaaarrrggg.
>> Well, of course you'd think that. After all, you know that you and your monkey don't read the poems, but you also want to believe that you know more about them than I do; so of course you'd want to believe that I don't read them, either.

> Judging by what you post on AAPC about the poem (4 lines), we have no reason to believe that you have read any more of the poem than those lines.

Of course; if all you've read is a 4-line quote, there's no reason to believe anything. Including your belief that I haven't read any of the poems I've blogged. Your only reason for thinking that is your own unwarranted belief that you're "smarter" than your opponents. (Whether you actually think that, or whether you're simply aping Michael Monkey, is irrelevant.


> Maybe not even those, since they are copied and pasted.

Now, that is just stupid. Do you copy and paste the things you do (in this and other threads) without reading them? Have you ever copied and pasted something that you've never read? Why in the hell would you think that anyone else does. HINT: If you want to appear "[smart]" then you really should not write such stupid things.

[Michael Pendragon]

NancyGene wrote:
> The opinions were from critics of the day, contemporary with Austin. Do you ignore all reviews and opinions from qualified people, in favor of just your own opinion?

DUNCE: Oh, no, NastyGoon, you're misunderstanding again. One should read all the reviews. However, when it comes to believinging him.
>

You're stuttering, Dunce, and have misused a period instead of a comma. I know that "Team Donkey" is fond of accusing others of having a "MELTDOWN," but you are the one who displays the telltale effects of one most frequently.

> you have to use your own judgement, put them in context, and consider the sources. The "opinions ... of the day" have actually been from other poets, Austin's competitors. Poets like Browning and Blunt were not dispassionate critics: they were convinced that they were "better" poets than Austin (and they may have been correct (and may have been; I'm not getting into that), so it's reasonable to think they were both jealous and butthurt when Austin became Poet Laureate, while neither of them were even considered for the job.

DUNCE: (I've witnessed that very thing first hand; for example, I remember how jealous and butthurt Jim Senetto became when Will Dockery got a book published by George J. Dance and he didn't. So I do know what I'm talking about.)
>

Why do you lie so much, Dunce?

No one remembers any such thing, because it never happened.

Jim has a poetry collection, "Cardboard Mansions," published at Amazon, and did so at the time.

https://www.amazon.com/Cardboard-Mansions-J-D-Senetto/dp/1329079825

The reason that Jim (and everyone else) was annoyed with your publishing the Donkey was that you inconsiderately chose to compile/edit/proofread the book *here,* rather than through personal emails. In doing so, you used AAPC for what should have been personal correspondence, thereby wasting everyone else's time.

The fact that you did so for approximately 2 1/2 years (when anyone else would have had the book published in less than a month) only compounded your offense.

>> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.

>> The problem with that, NastyGoon, is that I did know "that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and and you already know that; since you've read where I've stated it:

> Then why did you say to Michael: "So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?" AND "I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)" .....if you already knew where it was?

DUNCE: As I've already explained, Michael was misquoting Austin, and, more importantly, was misrepresenting him. Austin said that narrative poetry (whether written in epic or dramatic style were the highest form of poetry. Michael's account made no mention of epic poetry at all -- in Michael's account "Dramatic Verse" was the highest form and dumb old epic poetry wasn't even worth a mention.
>

As I'd guessed in my previous response, this is yet another example of your niggling attempts nitpick the words used in a paraphrased reference to a passage I'd directly quoted.

Do you understand what a paraphrase is?

Do you understand that when discussing a passage one has quoted verbatim, it is unnecessary to point out *everything* contained in said passage?

Furthermore "dramatic style (poetry)" = "dramatic verse."

Quibbling over Mr. Austin's not having placed the words "dramatic" and "verse" together, is petty beyond belief.

> George Dance, you are are losing focus.

DUNCE: No, NastyGoon. Here's where the focus is, and should stay:

> Alfred Austin wrote an epic poem, /The Human Tragedy/. Perhaps because of the title, perhaps because he called his Cantos "Acts," you got the idea Austin's epic was a play -- you mistakenly called it a play, and I corrected you. Since you and your monkey don't like to be corrected, given that you want to be seen as "so much smarter," than anyone else, you've been spreading the nonsense that Austin'g epic really was a play.

You've finally conceded that his original (1862) verse was an epic poem; your current story is that Austin turned it into a play in his 1876 revision.
>

No, Lying Dunce -- NancyGene has never conceded any such thing.

Mr. Austin's revision (wherein he divided his work into "Acts," merely supports NancyGene's original claim that he considered his work to be a "closet drama."

>> <quote>
>> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. </q>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
>> We know you read that, since it's from the very post you copied the quotes in your OP for this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread so that you could misrepresent the discussion?

> No, it was to make sure that you saw the origin of the quote that Austin thought that dramatic verse was the highest form of poetry.

DUNCE: As we've seen, that quote did not say "that dramatic verse was the hidhest form of poetry". Austin thought that narrative poetry, whether written in dramatic style as a play (like Shakespeare) or in straight narrative as an epic (like Milton) was the highest form. Austin's quotes do not say that "dramatic verse" was higher or better than epic poetry, while Michael's quotes say exactly that.
>

While it's true that Mr. Austin never said that "dramatic verse was the hidhest[sic] form of poetry," he did say that it was (along with epic verse) the *highest* form.

> Remember that you questioned Michael as to the source? Sheesh. You seem to have both short and long-term memory loss.

DUNCE: As I've explained, and we all can see since you've given the source, Michael was misrepresenting his source; he was dishonestly pretending that Austin thought dramatic poetry was "higher" than epic poetry. Why? So that stupid people, who've never read the poem, would believe that was why Austin turned his epic poem into a "closet drama" (which, to repeat, never happened).
>

Since I had quoted both of my sources verbatim, I could not possibly have been misrepresenting them by only mentioning the relevant portions in my paraphrased reference to the same.

Why do you lie so much, Dunce?

>> > We don't think that George Dance fully reads any of the poems that George Dance features on George Dance's blaaarrrggg.
>> Well, of course you'd think that. After all, you know that you and your monkey don't read the poems, but you also want to believe that you know more about them than I do; so of course you'd want to believe that I don't read them, either.

> Judging by what you post on AAPC about the poem (4 lines), we have no reason to believe that you have read any more of the poem than those lines.

DUNCE: Of course; if all you've read is a 4-line quote, there's no reason to believe anything. Including your belief that I haven't read any of the poems I've blogged. Your only reason for thinking that is your own unwarranted belief that you're "smarter" than your opponents. (Whether you actually think that, or whether you're simply aping Michael Monkey, is irrelevant.
>

We think you don't read the poems because you copy/paste them with any typos/errors intact.

We think you don't read the poems because you post the copy/pasted excerpts from them without offering any original comments on them.

We think you don't adequately research the poems because you attribute incorrect publication dates to them.

> Maybe not even those, since they are copied and pasted.

DUNCE: Now, that is just stupid. Do you copy and paste the things you do (in this and other threads) without reading them? Have you ever copied and pasted something that you've never read? Why in the hell would you think that anyone else does. HINT: If you want to appear "amart" then you really should not write such stupid things.
>

If you want to appear "smart," you should first learn how to spell it correctly.



-- Michael Pendragon

Jesika: [Addressing Will Donkey] You have no concept of what 'thought provoking' means, do you?

Parse Tree: He has no thoughts to provoke.

[Will Dockery]

Again, well put, George.

[Faraway Star]

Good day and again good read...!

[George J.]

On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 10:34:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> NancyGene wrote:

> > The opinions were from critics of the day, contemporary with Austin. Do you ignore all reviews and opinions from qualified people, in favor of just your own opinion?

> DUNCE: Oh, no, NastyGoon, you're misunderstanding again. One should read all the reviews. However, when it comes to believing[ them,]

>
> You're stuttering, Dunce, and have misused a period instead of a comma. I know that "Team Donkey" is fond of accusing others of having a "MELTDOWN," but you are the one who displays the telltale effects of one most frequently.

Seriously, Monkey? Where did you get the idea that "stuttering" is the sign of a "MELTDOWN"? Do you really believe that? Or is that just something you and NastyGoon learned on your "debate teams" -- "If your opponent stutters, forget what you're debating and switch to making personal attacks on him!"?

> > you have to use your own judgement, put them in context, and consider the sources. The "opinions ... of the day" have actually been from other poets, Austin's competitors. Poets like Browning and Blunt were not dispassionate critics: they were convinced that they were "better" poets than Austin (and they may have been correct (and may have been; I'm not getting into that), so it's reasonable to think they were both jealous and butthurt when Austin became Poet Laureate, while neither of them were even considered for the job.

*crickets*. As I said, "forget what you're debating" ...

> DUNCE: (I've witnessed that very thing first hand; for example, I remember how jealous and butthurt Jim Senetto became when Will Dockery got a book published by George J. Dance and he didn't. So I do know what I'm talking about.)
>
> Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> No one remembers any such thing, because it never happened.

You don't "remember any such thing" because Jim was your ally and your slurp-puppet.

>
> Jim has a poetry collection, "Cardboard Mansions," published at Amazon, and did so at the time.

Wh> https://www.amazon.com/Cardboard-Mansions-J-D-Senetto/dp/1329079825

Yes, Michael, we know; you both bragged of it often enough. Jim's one "proof" that he was a poet and Will wasn't was that he had a book, and Will didn't. Then Will got one.

>
> The reason that Jim (and everyone else) was annoyed with your publishing the Donkey was that you inconsiderately chose to compile/edit/proofread the book *here,* rather than through personal emails. In doing so, you used AAPC for what should have been personal correspondence, thereby wasting everyone else's time.

Yes, I've read that story from you before, Michael; and your periodically regurgitating it doesn't make it any more believable. IMO, any would-be writer can benefit by learning what goes into putting out a book, so I think our threads on the book were beneficial; but, for those like you who didn't, there was no reason for you to be reading those threads in the first place as they were clearly marked as such: they were none of your business, and you knew they were none of your business. You and your slurppuppet Jim chose to waste your own time sticking your nose into our business; stop trying to pretend that was our fault just because it was our business.

> The fact that you did so for approximately 2 1/2 years (when anyone else would have had the book published in less than a month) only compounded your offense.

We may have talked about doing *a* book for that long, but the total time to produce Will's SP, from conception to publishing date, was IIRC about 3 months. Once again: why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?

> >> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.
>
> >> The problem with that, NastyGoon, is that I did know "that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and and you already know that; since you've read where I've stated it:
>
> > Then why did you say to Michael: "So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?" AND "I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)" .....if you already knew where it was?

> DUNCE: As I've already explained, Michael was misquoting Austin, and, more importantly, was misrepresenting him. Austin said that narrative poetry (whether written in epic or dramatic style were the highest form of poetry. Michael's account made no mention of epic poetry at all -- in Michael's account "Dramatic Verse" was the highest form and dumb old epic poetry wasn't even worth a mention.
>
> As I'd guessed in my previous response, this is yet another example of your niggling attempts nitpick the words used in a paraphrased reference to a passage I'd directly quoted.
>

Michael: when you said you quoted a passage from Austin's preface, I asked you to produce it. You still haven't.

Now that NastyGoon has supplied quotes from the preface, it's clear why you didn't: there was no such passage, since Austin never said there (or, most likely, anywhere) what you'd claimed he did.

> Do you understand what a paraphrase is?

Sure. Do you understand that a paragraph can be accurate or inaccurate, correct or incorrect? Yours was inaccurate and incorrect.

> Do you understand that when discussing a passage one has quoted verbatim, it is unnecessary to point out *everything* contained in said passage?

Michael; once again, no one has seen your so-called verbatim quote. When you were asked to produce it, or a link,to it, you tried to fob off a quote from fricking *AllPoetry* instead. Nor could your NastyGoon produce it, either; they had to Google the relevant quotes on their own (and found only quotes that completely undercut your argument).

>
> Furthermore "dramatic style (poetry)" = "dramatic verse."

Michael, neither "dramatic verse" nor "dramatic style (poetry)" are the same thing as "epic and dramatic poetry". The latter category includes epic poetry; the former does not.

> Quibbling over Mr. Austin's not having placed the words "dramatic" and "verse" together, is petty beyond belief.

Which explains why you'd want to pretend anyone is quibbling over that.

> > George Dance, you are are losing focus.
> DUNCE: No, NastyGoon. Here's where the focus is, and should stay:
> > Alfred Austin wrote an epic poem, /The Human Tragedy/. Perhaps because of the title, perhaps because he called his Cantos "Acts," you got the idea Austin's epic was a play -- you mistakenly called it a play, and I corrected you. Since you and your monkey don't like to be corrected, given that you want to be seen as "so much smarter," than anyone else, you've been spreading the nonsense that Austin'g epic really was a play.
>
> You've finally conceded that his original (1862) verse was an epic poem; your current story is that Austin turned it into a play in his 1876 revision.

> MONKEY: No, Lying Dunce -- NancyGene has never conceded any such thing.

Wrong, Lying Michael. In yet another of their troll-threads, NastyGoon has conceded exactly that, in the Bandar-Log way, by pretending they never called the 1862 poem a play in the first place:

'If he looks above, we say "Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play, then recalled the copies for revision." We didn't say that the 1862 publication was a play at that point. It became one later."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/X1hBOAzcciA/m/nYLmz1S6BgAJ?hl=en

I notice that you two like to call everything your opponent says a "lie" without ever showing any evidence, in the hope something will stick. Is that yet another tactic you picked up on your "Debating Team"?

>
> Mr. Austin's revision (wherein he divided his work into "Acts," merely supports NancyGene's original claim that he considered his work to be a "closet drama."

It's your claim that (because he called his cantos Acts") he considered his epic poem to be a "closet drama" rather than an epic poem (which, remember, he considered the "highest form" of poetry). The quotes NastyGoon (not you) found in his 1876 preface do not support your claim in any way.

> >> <quote>
> >> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. </q>
> >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
> >> We know you read that, since it's from the very post you copied the quotes in your OP for this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread so that you could misrepresent the discussion?
>
> > No, it was to make sure that you saw the origin of the quote that Austin thought that dramatic verse was the highest form of poetry.
> DUNCE: As we've seen, that quote did not say "that dramatic verse was the hidhest form of poetry". Austin thought that narrative poetry, whether written in dramatic style as a play (like Shakespeare) or in straight narrative as an epic (like Milton) was the highest form. Austin's quotes do not say that "dramatic verse" was higher or better than epic poetry, while Michael's quotes say exactly that.
> >
>

> MONKEY: While it's true that Mr. Austin never said that "dramatic verse was the hidhest[sic] form of poetry," he did say that it was (along with epic verse) the *highest* form.

Which wouldn't have helped you, since that does not give Austin a motive for changing, or pretending to change, his epic poem into "dramatic verse." Which is why you had to lie and misrepresent.

> > Remember that you questioned Michael as to the source? Sheesh. You seem to have both short and long-term memory loss.
> DUNCE: As I've explained, and we all can see since you've given the source, Michael was misrepresenting his source; he was dishonestly pretending that Austin thought dramatic poetry was "higher" than epic poetry. Why? So that stupid people, who've never read the poem, would believe that was why Austin turned his epic poem into a "closet drama" (which, to repeat, never happened).

> Since I had quoted both of my sources verbatim, I could not possibly have been misrepresenting them by only mentioning the relevant portions in my paraphrased reference to the same.

And there you go again, with the claim that you're previously quoted your "Dramatic Verse" bullshit from the preface. You've been asked to produce the quote, either by copying or by giving the link, and you've consistently dodged the request. It's reasonable to think that Lying Michael is lying yet again.

> Why do you lie so much, Dunce?

Why do you project so much, Michael Monkey?

> >> > We don't think that George Dance fully reads any of the poems that George Dance features on George Dance's blaaarrrggg.
> >> Well, of course you'd think that. After all, you know that you and your monkey don't read the poems, but you also want to believe that you know more about them than I do; so of course you'd want to believe that I don't read them, either.
>
> > Judging by what you post on AAPC about the poem (4 lines), we have no reason to believe that you have read any more of the poem than those lines.
> DUNCE: Of course; if all you've read is a 4-line quote, there's no reason to believe anything. Including your belief that I haven't read any of the poems I've blogged. Your only reason for thinking that is your own unwarranted belief that you're "smarter" than your opponents. (Whether you actually think that, or whether you're simply aping Michael Monkey, is irrelevant.
> >
>

> MONKEY: We think you don't read the poems
anip

Yes, Michael MOnkey; we've all heard those stories before, too.

> > Maybe not even those, since they are copied and pasted.
> DUNCE: Now, that is just stupid. Do you copy and paste the things you do (in this and other threads) without reading them? Have you ever copied and pasted something that you've never read? Why in the hell would you think that anyone else does. HINT: If you want to appear "amart" then you really should not write such stupid things.
> >
>

> MONKEY: If you want to appear "smart," you should first learn how to spell it correctly.

Michael Monkey can't figure out how to defend his NastyGoon's illogic here. But he did find a typo-lame to deflect with, which should be enough for him to pretend that he's "winning" his silly little debate.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 1:30:27 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 10:34:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > NancyGene wrote:
>
> > > The opinions were from critics of the day, contemporary with Austin. Do you ignore all reviews and opinions from qualified people, in favor of just your own opinion?
> > DUNCE: Oh, no, NastyGoon, you're misunderstanding again. One should read all the reviews. However, when it comes to believing[ them,]
> >
> > You're stuttering, Dunce, and have misused a period instead of a comma. I know that "Team Donkey" is fond of accusing others of having a "MELTDOWN," but you are the one who displays the telltale effects of one most frequently.
> Seriously, Monkey? Where did you get the idea that "stuttering" is the sign of a "MELTDOWN"? Do you really believe that? Or is that just something you and NastyGoon learned on your "debate teams" -- "If your opponent stutters, forget what you're debating and switch to making personal attacks on him!"?
>

Stuttering (especially the keyboard var.) is a sign that one is flailing -- desperately jabbering away with an ever-increasing awareness that his foot is in his mouth, but if he attempts to remove it, everyone will know.

> > > you have to use your own judgement, put them in context, and consider the sources. The "opinions ... of the day" have actually been from other poets, Austin's competitors. Poets like Browning and Blunt were not dispassionate critics: they were convinced that they were "better" poets than Austin (and they may have been correct (and may have been; I'm not getting into that), so it's reasonable to think they were both jealous and butthurt when Austin became Poet Laureate, while neither of them were even considered for the job.
> *crickets*. As I said, "forget what you're debating" ...

I'm sorry, George, but your comment is impossible to address. I cannot possibly know whether Mr. Browning and Mr. Blunt were motivated by feelings of jealousy and "butthurt."

Your comment is speculative at best, and based on... nothing.

I'm sure that you would experience feelings of jealousy and "butthurt" over the success of one of your peers, but you're known for your pettiness, whereas Browning and Blunt were not.

> > DUNCE: (I've witnessed that very thing first hand; for example, I remember how jealous and butthurt Jim Senetto became when Will Dockery got a book published by George J. Dance and he didn't. So I do know what I'm talking about.)
> >
> > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > No one remembers any such thing, because it never happened.
> You don't "remember any such thing" because Jim was your ally and your slurp-puppet.

I don't remember it, because it never happened.

If you can show proof that Jim acted "butthurt," please post it.

I don't think anyone here saw your "publication" of Will's donkeyspew as anything to be jealous of.

> > Jim has a poetry collection, "Cardboard Mansions," published at Amazon, and did so at the time.
> Wh> https://www.amazon.com/Cardboard-Mansions-J-D-Senetto/dp/1329079825
>
> Yes, Michael, we know; you both bragged of it often enough. Jim's one "proof" that he was a poet and Will wasn't was that he had a book, and Will didn't. Then Will got one.

Do you have any idea how spitefully childish you sound.

Jim is a talented poet. The Donkey is the worst so-called "poet" I have ever read.

The only "proof" necessary is their poetry.

> > The reason that Jim (and everyone else) was annoyed with your publishing the Donkey was that you inconsiderately chose to compile/edit/proofread the book *here,* rather than through personal emails. In doing so, you used AAPC for what should have been personal correspondence, thereby wasting everyone else's time.
> Yes, I've read that story from you before, Michael; and your periodically regurgitating it doesn't make it any more believable. IMO, any would-be writer can benefit by learning what goes into putting out a book, so I think our threads on the book were beneficial; but, for those like you who didn't, there was no reason for you to be reading those threads in the first place as they were clearly marked as such: they were none of your business, and you knew they were none of your business. You and your slurppuppet Jim chose to waste your own time sticking your nose into our business; stop trying to pretend that was our fault just because it was our business.
>

There is nothing beneficial from reading personal note passed between you and your Donkey.

> > The fact that you did so for approximately 2 1/2 years (when anyone else would have had the book published in less than a month) only compounded your offense.
> We may have talked about doing *a* book for that long, but the total time to produce Will's SP, from conception to publishing date, was IIRC about 3 months. Once again: why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
>

You talked about it a long time, exchanged what should have been personal emails regarding it for a long time, argued over what should and shouldn't be included for a long time, and spend approximately 2 1/2 years doing all of the above.

Book production begins when the Acquisitions Editor contracts with the Author. That would have been the point at which you'd agreed to publish a book.

> > >> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.
> >
> > >> The problem with that, NastyGoon, is that I did know "that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and and you already know that; since you've read where I've stated it:
> >
> > > Then why did you say to Michael: "So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?" AND "I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)" .....if you already knew where it was?
>
> > DUNCE: As I've already explained, Michael was misquoting Austin, and, more importantly, was misrepresenting him. Austin said that narrative poetry (whether written in epic or dramatic style were the highest form of poetry. Michael's account made no mention of epic poetry at all -- in Michael's account "Dramatic Verse" was the highest form and dumb old epic poetry wasn't even worth a mention.
> >
> > As I'd guessed in my previous response, this is yet another example of your niggling attempts nitpick the words used in a paraphrased reference to a passage I'd directly quoted.
> >
> Michael: when you said you quoted a passage from Austin's preface, I asked you to produce it. You still haven't.

There is no single quote that includes all of the necessary elements. I *paraphrased* the general idea expressed over seven pages of his Preface. To wit:

Preface: On the Position and Prospects of Poetry,
p ix: Austin divides poetry into the following categories: "Descriptive, Lyrical, Reflective, and Narrative Poetry, respectively Epic and Dramatic Poetry." He continues to say that "epic Poetry and dramatic Poetry have assuredly fallen on evil days."
p x: he lists examples of epic and dramatic poets as "Chaucer, Spenser, Milton, Byron, even Shakespeare himself."
pp xv-xvi: "I suppose it is everybody's opinion that the most delightful of all love-stories in verse is *Romeo and Juliet.*"

From the above examples, it is clear that he is including Shakespeare's plays as examples of "Dramatic Poetry" and "Verse."

> Now that NastyGoon has supplied quotes from the preface, it's clear why you didn't: there was no such passage, since Austin never said there (or, most likely, anywhere) what you'd claimed he did.
>

See above.

> > Do you understand what a paraphrase is?
> Sure. Do you understand that a paragraph can be accurate or inaccurate, correct or incorrect? Yours was inaccurate and incorrect.

I said "paraphrase," Dunce. Not "paragraph."

The two words are *not* interchangeable.

> > Do you understand that when discussing a passage one has quoted verbatim, it is unnecessary to point out *everything* contained in said passage?
> Michael; once again, no one has seen your so-called verbatim quote. When you were asked to produce it, or a link,to it, you tried to fob off a quote from fricking *AllPoetry* instead. Nor could your NastyGoon produce it, either; they had to Google the relevant quotes on their own (and found only quotes that completely undercut your argument).
> >

The AllPoetry quote is verbatim.

The paraphrased sections of the Preface included direct quotes insofar as Mr. Austin's terminology ("verse," "Dramatic Poetry") were concerned -- and such, you'll recall, was the crux of the argument.

> > Furthermore "dramatic style (poetry)" = "dramatic verse."
> Michael, neither "dramatic verse" nor "dramatic style (poetry)" are the same thing as "epic and dramatic poetry". The latter category includes epic poetry; the former does not.
>

Again, we are not discussing George Dunce's definitions, nor even my own.

We are discussing Mr. Austin's definitions. And, from the *directly quoted* sections of his Preface (above), it is clear that he considered Shakespeare's plays to be both "Dramatic Poetry" and "Verse."

> > Quibbling over Mr. Austin's not having placed the words "dramatic" and "verse" together, is petty beyond belief.
> Which explains why you'd want to pretend anyone is quibbling over that.

Then what particular nit do you claim to be picking?

> > > George Dance, you are are losing focus.
> > DUNCE: No, NastyGoon. Here's where the focus is, and should stay:
> > > Alfred Austin wrote an epic poem, /The Human Tragedy/. Perhaps because of the title, perhaps because he called his Cantos "Acts," you got the idea Austin's epic was a play -- you mistakenly called it a play, and I corrected you. Since you and your monkey don't like to be corrected, given that you want to be seen as "so much smarter," than anyone else, you've been spreading the nonsense that Austin'g epic really was a play.
> >
> > You've finally conceded that his original (1862) verse was an epic poem; your current story is that Austin turned it into a play in his 1876 revision.
> > MONKEY: No, Lying Dunce -- NancyGene has never conceded any such thing.
>
> Wrong, Lying Michael. In yet another of their troll-threads, NastyGoon has conceded exactly that, in the Bandar-Log way, by pretending they never called the 1862 poem a play in the first place:
>
> 'If he looks above, we say "Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play, then recalled the copies for revision." We didn't say that the 1862 publication was a play at that point. It became one later."
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/X1hBOAzcciA/m/nYLmz1S6BgAJ?hl=en
>

I'm afraid I don't see your point, and can only dismiss your complaint as the result of poor reading comprehension on your part.

> I notice that you two like to call everything your opponent says a "lie" without ever showing any evidence, in the hope something will stick. Is that yet another tactic you picked up on your "Debating Team"?
> >

I don't know what further evidence you could possibly want. NancyGene's statement is *not* saying that he labeled "The Human Tragedy" a "book/play" in 1862. She is telling you that the book/play (signifying its disputed categorization) was published in 1862, then "recalled" (pulled from publication) by Mr. Austin, and reformatted in what is a distinctly play-like form.

You are misreading her statement to say that he'd published "The Human Tragedy" in 1862 *as a book/play." However, that is the result of poor reading comprehension on your part.

> > Mr. Austin's revision (wherein he divided his work into "Acts," merely supports NancyGene's original claim that he considered his work to be a "closet drama."
> It's your claim that (because he called his cantos Acts") he considered his epic poem to be a "closet drama" rather than an epic poem (which, remember, he considered the "highest form" of poetry). The quotes NastyGoon (not you) found in his 1876 preface do not support your claim in any way.
>

I did not say that, Lying Dunce. Please stop rephrasing everything I say incorrectly.

I did not say that he considered his epic poem to be a "closet drama" because he called his cantos Acts.

I said that he called the cantos of his poem "Acts" because he wanted it to be considered a "closet drama."

I sincerely hope that your legendary MENSA level IQ is capable of appreciating the difference.

> > >> <quote>
> > >> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. </q>
> > >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
> > >> We know you read that, since it's from the very post you copied the quotes in your OP for this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread so that you could misrepresent the discussion?
> >
> > > No, it was to make sure that you saw the origin of the quote that Austin thought that dramatic verse was the highest form of poetry.
> > DUNCE: As we've seen, that quote did not say "that dramatic verse was the hidhest form of poetry". Austin thought that narrative poetry, whether written in dramatic style as a play (like Shakespeare) or in straight narrative as an epic (like Milton) was the highest form. Austin's quotes do not say that "dramatic verse" was higher or better than epic poetry, while Michael's quotes say exactly that.
> > >
> >
> > MONKEY: While it's true that Mr. Austin never said that "dramatic verse was the hidhest[sic] form of poetry," he did say that it was (along with epic verse) the *highest* form.
>
> Which wouldn't have helped you, since that does not give Austin a motive for changing, or pretending to change, his epic poem into "dramatic verse." Which is why you had to lie and misrepresent.
>

We have not agreed that it was ever seen by Mr. Austin as an "epic" poem, Dunce.

Austin divided Narrative Poetry into two categories: "epic" and "dramatic."

We can agree that he would have considered "The Human Tragedy" to be an example of a Narrative Poem. The question as to which subdivision of Narrative Poetry he wished it to be an example of is what we are attempting to determine in this discussion.

> > > Remember that you questioned Michael as to the source? Sheesh. You seem to have both short and long-term memory loss.
> > DUNCE: As I've explained, and we all can see since you've given the source, Michael was misrepresenting his source; he was dishonestly pretending that Austin thought dramatic poetry was "higher" than epic poetry. Why? So that stupid people, who've never read the poem, would believe that was why Austin turned his epic poem into a "closet drama" (which, to repeat, never happened).
>
> > Since I had quoted both of my sources verbatim, I could not possibly have been misrepresenting them by only mentioning the relevant portions in my paraphrased reference to the same.
> And there you go again, with the claim that you're previously quoted your "Dramatic Verse" bullshit from the preface. You've been asked to produce the quote, either by copying or by giving the link, and you've consistently dodged the request. It's reasonable to think that Lying Michael is lying yet again.
>

I have quoted the significant passages above, and explained how, when taken together, they show that Austin considered Shakespeare's plays to be examples of "Dramatic Poetry."

> > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> Why do you project so much, Michael Monkey?

That is not an acceptable answer.

> > >> > We don't think that George Dance fully reads any of the poems that George Dance features on George Dance's blaaarrrggg.
> > >> Well, of course you'd think that. After all, you know that you and your monkey don't read the poems, but you also want to believe that you know more about them than I do; so of course you'd want to believe that I don't read them, either.
> >
> > > Judging by what you post on AAPC about the poem (4 lines), we have no reason to believe that you have read any more of the poem than those lines.
> > DUNCE: Of course; if all you've read is a 4-line quote, there's no reason to believe anything. Including your belief that I haven't read any of the poems I've blogged. Your only reason for thinking that is your own unwarranted belief that you're "smarter" than your opponents. (Whether you actually think that, or whether you're simply aping Michael Monkey, is irrelevant.
> > >
> >
> > MONKEY: We think you don't read the poems
> anip
>
> Yes, Michael MOnkey; we've all heard those stories before, too.

If you read them, why are you incapable of commenting on them in your posts (as per the Official AAPC Guidelines)?

> > > Maybe not even those, since they are copied and pasted.
> > DUNCE: Now, that is just stupid. Do you copy and paste the things you do (in this and other threads) without reading them? Have you ever copied and pasted something that you've never read? Why in the hell would you think that anyone else does. HINT: If you want to appear "amart" then you really should not write such stupid things.
> > >
> >
> > MONKEY: If you want to appear "smart," you should first learn how to spell it correctly.
>
> Michael Monkey can't figure out how to defend his NastyGoon's illogic here. But he did find a typo-lame to deflect with, which should be enough for him to pretend that he's "winning" his silly little debate.
>

Your question was as idiotic as your misspelling. I found the latter to be a sufficient answer. However, I was forgetting that you are a dunce, and that dunces need to have every little detail spelled out to them in no uncertain terms.

So:

Do I copy/paste quotations without reading them? No.

Do I think others copy/paste without reading? Yes.

Why in the hell would I think that?

Because your Donkey and his Stink continually copy/paste articles that *contradict* the point they are trying to argue for.

And since two of Team Donkey's members have been repeatedly caught doing so, it seems likely that the third member of Team Donkey would do so as well.

Michael Pendragon
"I do go in for the childish name-calling."
-- Will Dockery in a rare moment of self-acknowledgement
https://imgur.com/gallery/dpR2ESh
https://imgur.com/gallery/rtvGMMt

[Will Dockery]

George J. wrote:
> On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 10:34:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > NancyGene wrote:
>
> > > > The opinions were from critics of the day, contemporary with Austin. Do you ignore all reviews and opinions from qualified people, in favor of just your own opinion?
> > > DUNCE: Oh, no, NastyGoon, you're misunderstanding again. One should read all the reviews. However, when it comes to believing[ them,]
> > >
> > > You're stuttering, Dunce, and have misused a period instead of a comma. I know that "Team Donkey" is fond of accusing others of having a "MELTDOWN," but you are the one who displays the telltale effects of one most frequently.
> > Seriously, Monkey? Where did you get the idea that "stuttering" is the sign of a "MELTDOWN"? Do you really believe that? Or is that just something you and NastyGoon learned on your "debate teams" -- "If your opponent stutters, forget what you're debating and switch to making personal attacks on him!"?

> > > > you have to use your own judgement, put them in context, and consider the sources. The "opinions ... of the day" have actually been from other poets, Austin's competitors. Poets like Browning and Blunt were not dispassionate critics: they were convinced that they were "better" poets than Austin (and they may have been correct (and may have been; I'm not getting into that), so it's reasonable to think they were both jealous and butthurt when Austin became Poet Laureate, while neither of them were even considered for the job.
> > *crickets*. As I said, "forget what you're debating" ...

> > > DUNCE: (I've witnessed that very thing first hand; for example, I remember how jealous and butthurt Jim Senetto became when Will Dockery got a book published by George J. Dance and he didn't. So I do know what I'm talking about.)
> > >
> > > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > No one remembers any such thing, because it never happened.
> > You don't "remember any such thing" because Jim was your ally and your slurp-puppet.
> > >

> > > Jim has a poetry collection, "Cardboard Mansions," published at Amazon, and did so at the time.
> > Wh> https://www.amazon.com/Cardboard-Mansions-J-D-Senetto/dp/1329079825
> >
> > Yes, Michael, we know; you both bragged of it often enough. Jim's one "proof" that he was a poet and Will wasn't was that he had a book, and Will didn't. Then Will got one.
> > >

> > > The reason that Jim (and everyone else) was annoyed with your publishing the Donkey was that you inconsiderately chose to compile/edit/proofread the book *here,* rather than through personal emails. In doing so, you used AAPC for what should have been personal correspondence, thereby wasting everyone else's time.
> > Yes, I've read that story from you before, Michael; and your periodically regurgitating it doesn't make it any more believable. IMO, any would-be writer can benefit by learning what goes into putting out a book, so I think our threads on the book were beneficial; but, for those like you who didn't, there was no reason for you to be reading those threads in the first place as they were clearly marked as such: they were none of your business, and you knew they were none of your business. You and your slurppuppet Jim chose to waste your own time sticking your nose into our business; stop trying to pretend that was our fault just because it was our business.

> > > The fact that you did so for approximately 2 1/2 years (when anyone else would have had the book published in less than a month) only compounded your offense.
> > We may have talked about doing *a* book for that long, but the total time to produce Will's SP, from conception to publishing date, was IIRC about 3 months. Once again: why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?

> > > >> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.
> > >
> > > >> The problem with that, NastyGoon, is that I did know "that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and and you already know that; since you've read where I've stated it:
> > >
> > > > Then why did you say to Michael: "So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?" AND "I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)" .....if you already knew where it was?
> >
> > > DUNCE: As I've already explained, Michael was misquoting Austin, and, more importantly, was misrepresenting him. Austin said that narrative poetry (whether written in epic or dramatic style were the highest form of poetry. Michael's account made no mention of epic poetry at all -- in Michael's account "Dramatic Verse" was the highest form and dumb old epic poetry wasn't even worth a mention.
> > >
> > > As I'd guessed in my previous response, this is yet another example of your niggling attempts nitpick the words used in a paraphrased reference to a passage I'd directly quoted.
> > >
> > Michael: when you said you quoted a passage from Austin's preface, I asked you to produce it. You still haven't.
> >

> > Now that NastyGoon has supplied quotes from the preface, it's clear why you didn't: there was no such passage, since Austin never said there (or, most likely, anywhere) what you'd claimed he did.

> > > Do you understand what a paraphrase is?
> > Sure. Do you understand that a paragraph can be accurate or inaccurate, correct or incorrect? Yours was inaccurate and incorrect.

> > > Do you understand that when discussing a passage one has quoted verbatim, it is unnecessary to point out *everything* contained in said passage?
> > Michael; once again, no one has seen your so-called verbatim quote. When you were asked to produce it, or a link,to it, you tried to fob off a quote from fricking *AllPoetry* instead. Nor could your NastyGoon produce it, either; they had to Google the relevant quotes on their own (and found only quotes that completely undercut your argument).
> > >

> > > Furthermore "dramatic style (poetry)" = "dramatic verse."
> > Michael, neither "dramatic verse" nor "dramatic style (poetry)" are the same thing as "epic and dramatic poetry". The latter category includes epic poetry; the former does not.

> > > Quibbling over Mr. Austin's not having placed the words "dramatic" and "verse" together, is petty beyond belief.
> > Which explains why you'd want to pretend anyone is quibbling over that.

> > > > George Dance, you are are losing focus.
> > > DUNCE: No, NastyGoon. Here's where the focus is, and should stay:
> > > > Alfred Austin wrote an epic poem, /The Human Tragedy/. Perhaps because of the title, perhaps because he called his Cantos "Acts," you got the idea Austin's epic was a play -- you mistakenly called it a play, and I corrected you. Since you and your monkey don't like to be corrected, given that you want to be seen as "so much smarter," than anyone else, you've been spreading the nonsense that Austin'g epic really was a play.
> > >
> > > You've finally conceded that his original (1862) verse was an epic poem; your current story is that Austin turned it into a play in his 1876 revision.
> > > MONKEY: No, Lying Dunce -- NancyGene has never conceded any such thing.
> >
> > Wrong, Lying Michael. In yet another of their troll-threads, NastyGoon has conceded exactly that, in the Bandar-Log way, by pretending they never called the 1862 poem a play in the first place:
> >
> > 'If he looks above, we say "Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play, then recalled the copies for revision." We didn't say that the 1862 publication was a play at that point. It became one later."
> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/X1hBOAzcciA/m/nYLmz1S6BgAJ?hl=en
> >

> > I notice that you two like to call everything your opponent says a "lie" without ever showing any evidence, in the hope something will stick. Is that yet another tactic you picked up on your "Debating Team"?
> > >

> > > Mr. Austin's revision (wherein he divided his work into "Acts," merely supports NancyGene's original claim that he considered his work to be a "closet drama."
> > It's your claim that (because he called his cantos Acts") he considered his epic poem to be a "closet drama" rather than an epic poem (which, remember, he considered the "highest form" of poetry). The quotes NastyGoon (not you) found in his 1876 preface do not support your claim in any way.

> > > >> <quote>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. </q>
> > > >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
> > > >> We know you read that, since it's from the very post you copied the quotes in your OP for this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread so that you could misrepresent the discussion?
> > >
> > > > No, it was to make sure that you saw the origin of the quote that Austin thought that dramatic verse was the highest form of poetry.
> > > DUNCE: As we've seen, that quote did not say "that dramatic verse was the hidhest form of poetry". Austin thought that narrative poetry, whether written in dramatic style as a play (like Shakespeare) or in straight narrative as an epic (like Milton) was the highest form. Austin's quotes do not say that "dramatic verse" was higher or better than epic poetry, while Michael's quotes say exactly that.
> > > >
> > >
> > > MONKEY: While it's true that Mr. Austin never said that "dramatic verse was the hidhest[sic] form of poetry," he did say that it was (along with epic verse) the *highest* form.
> >
> > Which wouldn't have helped you, since that does not give Austin a motive for changing, or pretending to change, his epic poem into "dramatic verse." Which is why you had to lie and misrepresent.

> > > > Remember that you questioned Michael as to the source? Sheesh. You seem to have both short and long-term memory loss.
> > > DUNCE: As I've explained, and we all can see since you've given the source, Michael was misrepresenting his source; he was dishonestly pretending that Austin thought dramatic poetry was "higher" than epic poetry. Why? So that stupid people, who've never read the poem, would believe that was why Austin turned his epic poem into a "closet drama" (which, to repeat, never happened).
> >
> > > Since I had quoted both of my sources verbatim, I could not possibly have been misrepresenting them by only mentioning the relevant portions in my paraphrased reference to the same.
> > And there you go again, with the claim that you're previously quoted your "Dramatic Verse" bullshit from the preface. You've been asked to produce the quote, either by copying or by giving the link, and you've consistently dodged the request. It's reasonable to think that Lying Michael is lying yet again.

> > > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > Why do you project so much, Michael Monkey?

> > > >> > We don't think that George Dance fully reads any of the poems that George Dance features on George Dance's blaaarrrggg.
> > > >> Well, of course you'd think that. After all, you know that you and your monkey don't read the poems, but you also want to believe that you know more about them than I do; so of course you'd want to believe that I don't read them, either.
> > >
> > > > Judging by what you post on AAPC about the poem (4 lines), we have no reason to believe that you have read any more of the poem than those lines.
> > > DUNCE: Of course; if all you've read is a 4-line quote, there's no reason to believe anything. Including your belief that I haven't read any of the poems I've blogged. Your only reason for thinking that is your own unwarranted belief that you're "smarter" than your opponents. (Whether you actually think that, or whether you're simply aping Michael Monkey, is irrelevant.
> > > >
> > >
> > > MONKEY: We think you don't read the poems
> > anip
> >
> > Yes, Michael MOnkey; we've all heard those stories before, too.

> > > > Maybe not even those, since they are copied and pasted.
> > > DUNCE: Now, that is just stupid. Do you copy and paste the things you do (in this and other threads) without reading them? Have you ever copied and pasted something that you've never read? Why in the hell would you think that anyone else does. HINT: If you want to appear "amart" then you really should not write such stupid things.
> > > >
> > >
> > > MONKEY: If you want to appear "smart," you should first learn how to spell it correctly.
>
> Michael Monkey can't figure out how to defend his NastyGoon's illogic here. But he did find a typo-lame to deflect with, which should be enough for him to pretend that he's "winning" his silly little debate.

Like I said, meanwhile Pendragon's in such a tizzy he's making plenty of typos in his troll posts.

I spotted Pendragon using "to" for "too" earlier in the day.

Maybe Ash's style is rubbing off on him.

🙂

(Moved from the troll thread.)

[Faraway Star]

Again... well put G. D.

[W.Dockery]

Faraway Star wrote:

> On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-6, George J. wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 10:34:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > NancyGene wrote:
>>
>> > > The opinions were from critics of the day, contemporary with Austin. Do you ignore all reviews and opinions from qualified people, in favor of just your own opinion?
>> > DUNCE: Oh, no, NastyGoon, you're misunderstanding again. One should read all the reviews. However, when it comes to believing[ them,]
>> >
>> > You're stuttering, Dunce, and have misused a period instead of a comma. I know that "Team Donkey" is fond of accusing others of having a "MELTDOWN," but you are the one who displays the telltale effects of one most frequently.
>> Seriously, Monkey? Where did you get the idea that "stuttering" is the sign of a "MELTDOWN"? Do you really believe that? Or is that just something you and NastyGoon learned on your "debate teams" -- "If your opponent stutters, forget what you're debating and switch to making personal attacks on him!"?
>> > > you have to use your own judgement, put them in context, and consider the sources. The "opinions ... of the day" have actually been from other poets, Austin's competitors. Poets like Browning and Blunt were not dispassionate critics: they were convinced that they were "better" poets than Austin (and they may have been correct (and may have been; I'm not getting into that), so it's reasonable to think they were both jealous and butthurt when Austin became Poet Laureate, while neither of them were even considered for the job.
>> *crickets*. As I said, "forget what you're debating" ...
>> > DUNCE: (I've witnessed that very thing first hand; for example, I remember how jealous and butthurt Jim Senetto became when Will Dockery got a book published by George J. Dance and he didn't. So I do know what I'm talking about.)
>> >
>> > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
>> > No one remembers any such thing, because it never happened.
>> You don't "remember any such thing" because Jim was your ally and your slurp-puppet.
>> >
>> > Jim has a poetry collection, "Cardboard Mansions," published at Amazon, and did so at the time.
>> Wh> https://www.amazon.com/Cardboard-Mansions-J-D-Senetto/dp/1329079825
>>
>> Yes, Michael, we know; you both bragged of it often enough. Jim's one "proof" that he was a poet and Will wasn't was that he had a book, and Will didn't. Then Will got one.
>> >
>> > The reason that Jim (and everyone else) was annoyed with your publishing the Donkey was that you inconsiderately chose to compile/edit/proofread the book *here,* rather than through personal emails. In doing so, you used AAPC for what should have been personal correspondence, thereby wasting everyone else's time.
>> Yes, I've read that story from you before, Michael; and your periodically regurgitating it doesn't make it any more believable. IMO, any would-be writer can benefit by learning what goes into putting out a book, so I think our threads on the book were beneficial; but, for those like you who didn't, there was no reason for you to be reading those threads in the first place as they were clearly marked as such: they were none of your business, and you knew they were none of your business. You and your slurppuppet Jim chose to waste your own time sticking your nose into our business; stop trying to pretend that was our fault just because it was our business.
>> > The fact that you did so for approximately 2 1/2 years (when anyone else would have had the book published in less than a month) only compounded your offense.
>> We may have talked about doing *a* book for that long, but the total time to produce Will's SP, from conception to publishing date, was IIRC about 3 months. Once again: why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
>> > >> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.
>> >
>> > >> The problem with that, NastyGoon, is that I did know "that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and and you already know that; since you've read where I've stated it:
>> >
>> > > Then why did you say to Michael: "So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?" AND "I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)" .....if you already knew where it was?
>>

>> > DUNCE: As I've already explained, Michael was misquoting Austin, and, more importantly, was misrepresenting him. Austin said that narrative poetry (whether written in epic or dramatic style were the highest form of poetry.. Michael's account made no mention of epic poetry at all -- in Michael's account "Dramatic Verse" was the highest form and dumb old epic poetry wasn't even worth a mention.

>> > > Judging by what you post on AAPC about the poem (4 lines), we have no reason to believe that you have read any more of the poem than those lines..
>> > DUNCE: Of course; if all you've read is a 4-line quote, there's no reason to believe anything. Including your belief that I haven't read any of the poems I've blogged. Your only reason for thinking that is your own unwarranted belief that you're "smarter" than your opponents. (Whether you actually think that, or whether you're simply aping Michael Monkey, is irrelevant..

>> > >
>> >
>> > MONKEY: We think you don't read the poems
>> anip
>>
>> Yes, Michael MOnkey; we've all heard those stories before, too.
>> > > Maybe not even those, since they are copied and pasted.
>> > DUNCE: Now, that is just stupid. Do you copy and paste the things you do (in this and other threads) without reading them? Have you ever copied and pasted something that you've never read? Why in the hell would you think that anyone else does. HINT: If you want to appear "amart" then you really should not write such stupid things.
>> > >
>> >
>> > MONKEY: If you want to appear "smart," you should first learn how to spell it correctly.
>>
>> Michael Monkey can't figure out how to defend his NastyGoon's illogic here. But he did find a typo-lame to deflect with, which should be enough for him to pretend that he's "winning" his silly little debate.

> Again... well put G. D.

Agreed and seconded.

🙂

[George J.]

Thanks for bumping it, FS. It's not a bad summary. I think the idea of letting Austin mainly speak for himself works well; not only do the quotes state his points well, but they're also a pretty good sample of his prose style.

I did change the first sentence; it now reads: "Of more interest than Austin's poems are his poetics." That sounds more like the way an encyclopedia would put it, and putting "poetics" at the end makes the reference more sensible. (It's not a citation, but a link to his major work on poetics.) It's not cited at all -- it's just personal opinion, rather than someone else's opinion, but having read some of both I'm convinced of it.

Otherwise I've left the piece alone, and probably will continue to do so; every week I have to move on to new poets. Here's the link to the wiki article, in case you do want to check on it in the future.
https://pennyspoetry.fandom.com/wiki/Alfred_Austin?so=search#Austin's_poetics

[Faraway Star]

Pleasure was mine, found it to be a good read...!

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 3:35:21 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:

Well put.

[W.Dockery]

George J. Dance wrote:

> Michael Pendragon wrote:

>> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 10:03:59 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
>>> Today I added this section to the Penny's Poetry Pages article on Alfred Austin. It covers the basics, and is therefore much better than nothing. Depending on the discussion, I may add to it in future.
>>>
>>> Austin's poetics are more interesting than his poetry.<ref>c.f. Alfred Austin, "The Essentials of Great Poetry" in ''The Bridling of Pegasus: Prose papers on poetry'' (Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1967). [Austin (1967)]. Project Gutenberg, Web, Nov. 2, 2023.</ref>
>>>
>>> Austin believed that melodiousness (musicality) and lucidity (clearness of expression) were essential to poetry.
>>>
>>> :There must perforce be certain qualities common to all poetry, whether the greatest, the less great, or the[Pg 3] comparatively inferior, and whether descriptive, lyrical, idyllic, reflective, epic, or dramatic; and, so long as there existed any authority or body of generally accepted opinion on the subject, these were at least two such qualities, viz. melodiousness, whether sweet or sonorous, and lucidity or clearness of expression, to be apprehended, without laborious investigation, by highly cultured and simple readers alike.<ref>Austin (1967), 2-3.</ref>
>>>

>> I wholeheartedly concur with Mr. Austin, and have expressed both of these thoughts on numerous occasions in the past.

>> Indeed, I have often described my own poetry as being akin to a musical composition wherein the tone of each word is used to contribute to the spoken music of the piece (hard sounds, soft sounds, stressed/unstressed syllables, various vowels, consonants and combinations thereof correspond to forms of musical notation, etc.). I'd attempted to explain this to PJR, but was unable to express it to his satisfaction.

>> I have also repeatedly stated my belief that a poem should readily lend itself to being read without one's having to consult a dictionary or encyclopedia. Again, my rule of thumb is that if I have to consult a dictionary more than three times when reading a poem, I will most likely abandon it in favor of one that is more accessible. This is not done out of intellectual laziness on my part, but in accordance with my belief that a poem is effectively a spell. In order for the spell to work, the poem should be brief enough for the reader to complete it in a single sitting, and should not be interrupted by one's having recourse to a dictionary. A poem should rarely exceed 100 lines, and each word, each syllable, each meaning and connotation, should contribute to creating the overall effect (or effects) in regard to mood, tone, emotion, musicality, and meaning.

>> Not only should it be readily understandable, but it should be clearly expressed -- in terms of grammatically correct sentences. I have often raised this point regarding the Fragmentist poetry of the Donkey and his Stink. Poetry, indeed language, is first and foremost a form of communication. If a poet is unable to clearly express his thoughts to his readers, his readers will soon abandon his work out of frustration (over its impenetrability) or out of a repulsion to its grammatical incompetence.

>>> :The most generous critic, if he is to be discriminating and just, cannot, let me say again, allow that any verse which is profoundly obscure or utterly unmusical, no matter how intellectual in substance, deserves the appellation of poetry.<ref>Austin (1967), 7.</ref>
>>>

>> Exactly! This is the basis of my aversion to Modern Verse. The lack of both rhyme and meter make it impossible for the poem to contain musical qualities. It can be *poetic*; but it cannot be *poetry.* Similarly, the academic obscurity of T.S. Eliot, and the conceptual obscurity of PJR, renders their works unintelligible. A poem cannot create a spell over the reader if the latter is forced to guess at its possible meaning.


>>> He believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. On his theory, as I understand it, poetry was about the mind's engagement with the world. According to him, there are four distinct ways in which a mind engages with the world: (1) perception, (2) emotion, (3) thought, and (4) action. Each stage of engagement is a higher form, in that it emerges from and incorporates those below it. The four classed of poetry, corresponding to the different stages of engagement, are (1) purely descriptive poetry (such as [[imagism]]), (2) lyric poetry, (3) reflective or philosophical poetry, and finally (4) narrative (epic or dramatic) poetry.
>>>

>> Funny how you claimed (in two other threads today) that you were unaware of Mr. Austin's ever having used the term "dramatic verse." Do you feel there is a significant difference between the meanings of "verse" and "poetry"; or were you just trolling on the basis of his not having used those exact words?

> Neither. I asked you for a quote (in one thread, twice) where he used the term because I thought you were misquoting him. Now that I've tracked down what he does say about the subject, I'm convinced of it.

"Words matter."

[General-Zod]

George J. Dance wrote:
>
> Today I added this section to the Penny's Poetry Pages article on Alfred Austin. It covers the basics, and is therefore much better than nothing. Depending on the discussion, I may add to it in future.

> Austin's poetics are more interesting than his poetry.<ref>c.f. Alfred Austin, "The Essentials of Great Poetry" in ''The Bridling of Pegasus: Prose papers on poetry'' (Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1967). [Austin (1967)]. Project Gutenberg, Web, Nov. 2, 2023.</ref>

> Austin believed that melodiousness (musicality) and lucidity (clearness of expression) were essential to poetry.

> :There must perforce be certain qualities common to all poetry, whether the greatest, the less great, or the[Pg 3] comparatively inferior, and whether descriptive, lyrical, idyllic, reflective, epic, or dramatic; and, so long as there existed any authority or body of generally accepted opinion on the subject, these were at least two such qualities, viz. melodiousness, whether sweet or sonorous, and lucidity or clearness of expression, to be apprehended, without laborious investigation, by highly cultured and simple readers alike.<ref>Austin (1967), 2-3.</ref>

> :The most generous critic, if he is to be discriminating and just, cannot, let me say again, allow that any verse which is profoundly obscure or utterly unmusical, no matter how intellectual in substance, deserves the appellation of poetry.<ref>Austin (1967), 7.</ref>

> He believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. On his theory, as I understand it, poetry was about the mind's engagement with the world. According to him, there are four distinct ways in which a mind engages with the world: (1) perception, (2) emotion, (3) thought, and (4) action. Each stage of engagement is a higher form, in that it emerges from and incorporates those below it. The four classed of poetry, corresponding to the different stages of engagement, are (1) purely descriptive poetry (such as [[imagism]]), (2) lyric poetry, (3) reflective or philosophical poetry, and finally (4) narrative (epic or dramatic) poetry.

> :Never forgetting the essential qualities of melody and lucidity, do we not find that mere descriptive verse, which depends on perception or observation, is the humblest and most elementary form of poetry; that descriptive verse, when suffused with sentiment,[Pg 10] gains in value and charm; that if, to the foregoing, thought or reflection be superadded, there is a conspicuous rise in dignity, majesty, and relative excellence; and finally, that the employment of these in narrative action, whether epic or dramatic, carries us on to a stage of supreme excellence which can rarely be predicated of any poetry in which action is absent? If this be so, we have to the successive development of observation, feeling, thought, and action, an exact analogy or counterpart in (1) Descriptive Poetry; (2) Lyrical Poetry; (3) Reflective Poetry; (4) Epic or Dramatic Poetry; in each of which, melody and lucidity being always present, there is an advance in poetic value over the preceding stage, without the preceding one being eliminated from its progress.<ref>Austin (1967), 9-10.</ref>

Again.... Well put....

[Faraway Star]

Of interest again

[W.Dockery]

Again, thanks for the back story.